kid goes to local high schools and we just happen to have this brand. it's affordable and the fillmore is not that far yet, you know, to the high-end, where the people aren't really being helped by this. i went over to the community rec center and i'm working with them to make sure that they are served, and make sure that we get local employees. and we already do, but just checking in to make sure. any questions that you have? >> there may be questions further. >> thank you. >> thank you. any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> it's been pointed out there are quite a few vacancies on this particular part of fillmore street, and there are a lot of opportunities for local businesses and others, even if this goes in? because there are a lot of vacant sites and we're only talking about a

take-out pizza place that is just relocating a few blocks from its present location. the other advantage is this is more of an argument for both of them, but i don't think the other one will be for us if this passes. since most of their business is delivery, if you have them closer to each other, you can have drivers driving less distance, burning up less gas and generally be a little bit more favorable to the environment, if you are not going further distances to deliver pizza. also, it is nice to have something that is walkable in a neighborhood. a lot of times you come home and want to get a quick bite and you don't want to have to move your car again or take a bus to get something to eat. you just want to get some food and go home and there are quite a few residences in this area. a lot of parking lot

apartment buildings and condos and they mentioned they are getting a higher percentage of walkout traffic in addition to just delivery. it's replacing an existing eating and drinking establishment. that the present owner testified that his price point was too high to be successful. and you know, it just wasn't going to work. so either have a vacant place or you will have this. and finally, local owner, local hire. those things work for me. it's a franchise. it's a little different from just a chain. it's a franchise. it's operated independently. so i'm in favor of this and presumably we would not approve the one on geary, in one was approved, but i think this

sounds like the wiser decision. >> commissioner borden? >> well, i'm very sympathetic to the project sponsor and the desire just to move a few blocks away. i am concerned because in this area, there are safeway, wells fargo, panda express, subway sandwiches, starbucks, unfortunately it's like a glut of forual retail and it's across from mcdonalds and i understand there are some issues with the police around that area. and so i don't think that someplace where people can actually sit down and eat would help that situation that already exists with people kind of standing around and engaging in activities that, perhaps, they shouldn't be. so that is one of the reasons. the other reason is the concentration of formula retail. it's been such a long journey in trying to revitalize the lower fillmore. and create kind of this

vibrant, arts and cultural jazz district, which never really quite came to fruition. there was always hope and promise, once we got beyond redevelopment we got to a place we were having more locally-owned businesses. i'm sad to hear about the indian restaurant that is not thriving there, but this is an older building with nice awnings and a different kind of space that i don't really see formula retail in. if it wasn't for that concentration and the fact that i think we need to have changing the dynamics in that corridor, i would feel differently, but i actually don't think this is an asset or necessary addition. i recognize it's a move and i feel bad for you. i just don't like this location on fillmore. if it were maybe somewhere else i would be supportive, but at this site, i just can't. >> commissioner hillis

sorry, commissioner sugaya. >> so i think i share commissioner borden's comments and issues. i think it's just a better use on geary. it doesn't generate a lot of walk bitraffic and you have walk up and that is good. a quick question for the project sponsor. do you operate any -- all your restaurants under the domino's brand? >> well, >> well, yes. sorry. domino's doesn't allow you to operate others. >> i share commissioner borden's concerns. i think one of the problems that we haven't realized the

potential for fillmore is the overconcentration of formula retail. so i prefer that geary site. >> i share your concern, but regarding the drug dealing going on at that site, charlie's pharmacy right there, he is really worried about the vacancy. he is really worried about that. six people in nine years now and a vacancy isn't going to help. a busy restaurant versus one employee would reduce the rift raft. >> i think i agree. a mcdonalds has been brought up as part of the issue on that block, too. and it's busy. but it doesn't seem to generate the street presence and sidewalk presence that people want. so i share your concerns, but a non-formula retail busy restaurant, i would prefer. >> i hope you can walk around and take a look at it in the

morning time and afternoon time. >> we very familiar with fillmore street. >> commissioner moore. >> i think what is missing is a more robust discussion by other people from the neighborhood, including the supervisor herself, who apparently has voiced some concerns. but i would agree with commissioner borden and commissioner hillis about the many different concerns about the viability of the neighborhood as a commercial corridor on its own, its own character and its own signature. because adding another formula retail will not help that. it will fill an immediate need, but it's basically fulfilled in a different way. if most of this has take-out, it doesn't really add anything to giving character and personality to the neighborhood. so i would agree with being more in support of

geary as correct location. on the other hand i would very much encourage supervisor to help us in a discussion that also in a few weeks will look at the extension of the ncd and the lower fillmore, which we have continued several times. this is part of the same discussion. so that we have targeted and supported the right applicants with the right intentions of enhancing the story of the fillmore. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, to staff there was some communication with supervisor reed's office? >> i personally had communication with supervisor reed's aide and according to the aide, the supervisor is

proposed to formula retail going into the fillmore street area in general and intends to modify existing pending legislation with the fillmore street ncd or the proposed named filmore street ncd and to include language to control additional formula retail in that area. this proposed site does fall within that proposed area. >> do you know why she choose not to sent a representative? >> i don't know. i'm sorry. >> thank you. i guess i'm not quite so against the domino's as some people have voiced their opinion. it's an existing use, just moving a couple of blocks away. we had the same with high-low that moved from geary to polk. lots of opposition to that bar from the neighborhood saying,

you know, we're going to get rid of every bar that -- even if it's existing we don't want to have it renewed. and i guess i would go down the street to a take-out and get pizza. so i guess i don't understand what difference it makes whether it's a sit-down and all that business. it is still lots of people going in and out and generating -- i don't know if you call it "street life" but at least they are walking around on the streets by their apartments. i understand the supervisor's direction and i understand the testimony that was given by the gentleman representing some of the businesses in the area and we have a letter from the fillmore. i think it's a neighborhood group in opposition, but i'll

see what happens when me name is called. >> thank you. i just wanted to offer a couple of thoughts. i share the concern about wanting to have a larger vision for fillmore and lower fillmore in particular. as far as whether this food type is available, i believe there is another pizza establishment six belows away. it seems to me that the geary location may be more appropriate, but i ask the supervisor to please send a representative next time, so that we can sort of having a dialogue about what the intentions are. commissioner antonini. >> we know what happened with redevelopment and the destruction of the victorian in the fillmore district. slowly the district has been rebuilt, south of geary part of fillmore and it's made great

strides in last few years with places like yoshi's, 1300 fillmore, the jazz club, state bird provisions which was just rated as top new restaurant in united states this year and they also putting a second one in there. these are all sit-down, fairly expensive places for dinner and that is bringing a lot of business in there. but there are also the nights when you know, you can't afford that kind of thing, and you just want a pizza or you just want to order a pizza and take it home and those are the nights that are more common. and most we have seen businesses like the indian business, who spoke about how difficult it is, with a moderate price point, moderate to low even to survive and i don't see any harm in this. there my be a few other formula retail uses, but there are also

a lot of new uses that are independently owned, unique and they are bringing in a lot of activity to the area. so i don't think it's a bad thing. it will always be opened. it won't be dark. it will be lit. it will be a place there will be a little bit eyes on the streets to some degree and i don't think it does really any harm. so i'm supportive of this. i think we sometimes think of things in rigid terms like it's formula retail, it's evil. well, you have to look at the use. and it's actually a relocation as has been pointed out by commissioner sugaya. and so now people who want to have take-out pizza, will have to either walk or have it delivered a little further from the side of geary boulevard. well, that won't be there anymore, because that is being eliminated. so it will have to come from the geary side, if this one doesn't pass. so i would make had a motion to

approve, if anybody is going to second it. >> i'll second it. >> okay. >> on the motion to approve, with conditions, (roll call) >> that motion fails commissioners 2-4 >> commissioners, director, please. >> even if -- i think you might want to make a motion to affirmatively deny, but you have to make an attempt to deny because of the motion in front of you and the supporting

criteria are for approval. so i think you would have to have that come back to you. >> can i ask, what happens if we leave it as-is? >> then it does not pass. it's not like a dr, where if there is a failure to move. >> item 15, 3015 geary boulevard. you have accepted public testimony and closed that hearing. would you like to make a motion, commissioner borden? >> i will make a motion to approve, i think it's a better location. >> second. >> on the motion to approve with conditions (roll call vote) so moved commissioners. that motion passes unanimously,

6-0. items 17a and b, at 4058-4060 18th street, request for conditional use authorization, please note on january 24th, 2013, following public testimony, the commission continued the matter to february 7, 2013 by a vote of 6-0. commissioner fong was absent. and commissioner fong in order for you to participate in this hearing, you need to affirm if indeed you have viewed the video or listened to the audio recordings. >> i have and i'm prepared to participate in this vote. >> thank you, commissioner. i would also like to note that

on january 24th, following public testimony the zoning administrator continued the matter to february 7th,2013. at that hearing you closed public comment. so public testimony would only be allowed if new information was introduced to you today. >> good afternoon, president fong, members of the planning commission, staff is presenting a project at 4058-4060 18th street. the project requires a conditional use authorization, and a rear yard variance. january 24th, the commission had the first hearing on the conditional use. the project would include the establishment of a restaurant including on-site beer and wine sales. on the ground floor with a new commercial storefront to replace an existing garage and parking space pursuant to

planning code section 715.24. the second component of the project is the legalization of a change of occupancy of a residential use to a non-residential use the castro country club on the second floor pursuant it planning code sections 317-715.38 and 315.31. the last component includes the rear roof deck as the castro country club's proposed outdoor activity area. pursuant to planning code section 145.2. after the first hearing the ground floor proposed restaurant, that is the subject drew more concerns from the

commission and the commission had concerns about the ambient noise going through the sliding doors on the rear wall of the restaurant through the rear and the commission requested that the project sponsor develop alternate plans for the restaurant. the project sponsor submitted two alternative designs for the restaurant. basically both of the designs eliminate the rear light rail. one would set the rear wall of the restaurant back 11' without light rail and the second alternative would be to set the rear wall back 5', without light rail. the rest of the design mostly

are the same as the original. for instance on the roof deck, it is divided into two areas. one area is for the costa country club's outdoor activity and the second is reserved for the use of open space for the current residential unit on the 3rd floor. the difference would be the current proposal, the area would be separated by an hvac installation instead of the previous fixed planters. the project requires the planning commission a restaurant on the ground floor pursuant to planning code section 715.44. the second action is for the legalization of a change of occupancy of a residential use to a non-residential use to the castro country club. pursuant to -- i'm sorry --

the country club with the second floor outdoor activity area. and that basically the department would still maintain the original recommendation for approval. this is for a recommendation for approval for the proposed restaurant on the ground floor. it is not a formula retail use, but rather an independent, locally-owned business. it is designed to serve residents from the neighborhood, and patrons of other businesses on castro or 18th street and it's not a destination restaurant. no. 3, it contributes to the economic vitality of the

neighborhood by developing an underutilized garage floor into an active commercial storefront, while not removing any existing neighborhood serving uses no. 4 it is well-served by public transit and it should have a negligible impact on the current traffic pattern on the surrounding streets. and no. 5, it will operate between 8-10 job openings for city residents. the recommendation for approval of the legalization of the costa country club on the 2nd floor activityity area. no. 1, it's a clean and safe place for lgbt people in recovery from drugs and alcohol. and has established a history of historical recognition for almost 30 years at the project site, among the community.

second, although the legalization of the country club is a result of the converging of a residential unit, but the previous residential unit contains only two bedrooms and was not really a family-sized unit and it's not presently part of the city's housing stock. no. 3, the outdoor activity area on the 2nd floor as shown in the plans have been designed to minimize noise and privacy impacts to adjacent residential units. and the last, it is is well-served by public transit and should have a negligible impact upon the current traffic pattern or the surrounding streets. for both of the alternate designs, the project sponsor has met with the two neighbors at the original hearing who had

concerns about restaurant's noise and smell to the project sponsor. this concludes staff's presentation. i will be happy to answer your questions. thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor. >> commissioners, my name is ahmad and i'm the principal of the architects and i'm the project architect for both the owner of the building and the castro country club. first of all, thanks to tom wang, who did just such a thorough job again. you charged us with bringing back a redesign of the space and we did that and we took away what i think was the most objectionable part of the project which was the rear court. and i am going to have my associate nate dyson talk to you about his interaction with the neighbors. one correction i would like to

make in the conditions of approval. it incorrectly has 88:00 p.m. as sunday's closing and would like to change that to 11:00 like the other weeknights. so my om words besides that this is a nobel effort partnership between them. the only reason the restaurant is in front of you is because of the sale of beer and wine and with the mitigation measures we have taken we think we have dealt with any neighbor concerns and have a good project for the neighborhood and ask you to approve it. i am available for questions and i will turn you over to nate, who will answer questions and talk about the neighborhood's interactions. thank you. >> hi. nate dyson and i'm also an ark

tect and he w ark tect and i also work with ahmad and the country business owner and the country club. immediately after our last meeting i scheduled a meeting with the neighbors at the country club. i want to note within the ncd, the castro street ncd we are allowed to excavate to the property line for commercial use on the ground floor. so alternates a and b are largely similar. i could put them on the screen, if that helps to have them in front of you. both alternates -- the

mechanical equipment is located after the trees. 6' back from the property line. and i think you will see the intent of that. the kitchen exhaust is not locate there had. the kitchen exhaust is collected at the 4th floor towards the middle of our building, which keeps it as remote from neighboring properties as feasibility. so the combination of the landscape and mechanical area located at the rear yard create a total of 11' separating the castro country club's outdoor use from the rear neighbor. we have showdown shown in the drawings with discussion with the neighbors that we would

specify quiet-rated or water-cooled compressors for the hvac unit. this would be to supply cooling for the restaurant, now that we have gotten rid of the light r well, we won't have the flow of natural ventilation. so we have 6' of trees in both designs. we have a 5' mechanical area. most of that area is to provide the required access around the equipment. 30" on either side of a unit to deal with it. in discussing with the neighbors and i think i tried to speak with mr. sanchez before about this. there is currently a fence around the rear of the property and we would like to replace that fence. it provides privacy to the neighbors. so they would really like to see that privacy fence replaced.

it would be at zoning's discretion and i think it would make them happy. in addition, to the fence we have shown on the drawings, to pull the plaster off the wall at the neighboring property. and insulate and add gypsum board, two layers, to help us. which i know has been an issue to-date. thanks. >> may i? >> i think your time is up. >> i this had one thing that i didn't get in there. the hours of operation of the outside patio for the costa country club, which was capped at 9:00 p.m., my clients the castro country club respectfully request that they be allowed to you